Counting the passes in the build-up to a goal is a common way of characterising how a team scores. The count says less than it appears to, because two very different attacking methods produce goals at similar rates.
Long possessions score by moving the defence
A settled defence is compact and organised, and breaking it means shifting it sideways repeatedly until a gap opens between two players who were supposed to stay connected.
That shifting takes passes, and a lot of them, so a team playing this way accumulates long sequences before the decisive ball is played.
The passes are not the mechanism, though. The mechanism is the defensive line being dragged out of shape, and the passes are simply the tool doing the dragging.
Short sequences score by arriving before the shape does
A turnover in midfield finds the opposition's defenders spread out and facing the wrong way, with attacking players ahead of the ball.
The chance exists because the defence is not yet assembled, so the correct response is speed rather than more passing.
Adding passes to this situation destroys it, which is why coaches count the seconds rather than the touches on a counter.
Why the counts get misread
A team with many short build-ups is often described as direct, but the number can also mean it is winning the ball high up the pitch.
A team with long sequences may be patient by design or may simply be unable to progress the ball quickly.
The same figure supports opposite conclusions, which is what makes it weak evidence on its own.
The useful question is where the ball was won
Starting position tells you far more than pass count. A move beginning in the opposition half faces a disorganised defence regardless of length.
A move beginning at a goalkeeper's feet faces a fully set defence and must earn every yard.
Two goals with identical pass counts can therefore come from entirely different situations, and only the starting point distinguishes them.
What this means for evaluating attacks
Judging an attack by the shape of its build-up mistakes style for effectiveness, and both styles score perfectly well when the players executing them are suited to the method.
The useful comparison is whether a team creates chances against organised defences, against broken ones, or only against one of the two situations.
Sides that manage only one become predictable, because an opponent can choose which situation to offer them.